Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rebeca Alcántara
The opinions expressed in the present document do not necessarily reflect ICCROM’s position
nor that of its Member States.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 2
Table 1 33
Table 2 35
LIST OF ACRONYMS 38
Preface
But what does this profile show? Are these values “normal”? Thanks to her
training, the conservator knows that heat and humidity are important
factors in the deterioration of paper. So, in an ideal world, all 2,000 m3 of
documents would be kept cool and moderately dry. In the real world,
though, the conservator’s lack of specialised knowledge in preventive
conservation makes itself felt. How cool, how dry? How much variation is
reasonable? What should she propose?
A half hour later, the picture looks bleak. Behind the conservator’s cubicle,
the air conditioning vents collect dust, having broken down one month
after installation, two decades ago. Should the archive’s conditions be
brought up to international standards? A glance out the window shows
how difficult this will be. The rainy season has begun, and destitute
children huddle under the public building’s roof. Replacing the air
conditioning will entail great expense. But then, isn’t the children’s history
worth protecting? How else will they know their rights? This argument tips
the scales, and the conservator types, “Installation of modern air
conditioning equipment is recommended, if and when its operation follows
the strict specifications listed below, and its maintenance is properly
assured.” Fortunately, the director is a very progressive man, so the proof
of the gap between present conditions and those recommended by
European experts should impress him.
“Look, Jaime, I want to show you something.” She hands him a heavy
tome and points out article 52 of the federal monuments law. “Whosoever
damages or destroys a historic object in any way will be subjected to one
to ten years’ prison and a fine equal to the damages.” Jaime remains
impassive, but the conservator can tell that the point has been taken at
last. “You didn’t know this before, so I’m not going to do anything about
the diablito today. But next time…!”
The administrator comes along and Jaime vanishes into the stacks. “Bad
news,” says the administrator. “The building inspectors just came by. It
seems that international standards have changed. Halon gas is no longer
approved. We have to get rid of our fire extinguishers by next month.”
This is terrible news indeed. The budget will not allow for new
extinguishers to be bought until January. The archive will be unprotected
from fire for five months. “And to think of all the trouble and expense we
went to scarcely a year and a half ago, to install those extinguishers!”
“By the way,” says the conservator, “I just spoke to the fumigating
company’s manager. He proposed using a newer, less harmful product
next week, because the old substances have been linked to cancer in the
First World.” The administrator looks suspicious and asks how much more
this will cost. On being informed of the estimate for the new pesticide, he
laughs sardonically. “Forget it. Can you tell the difference between the
new product and the old? A bottle with ISO 9000 seals on it is no
guarantee. What’s to prevent the owner from filling it with the same old
pesticide? If he really uses pesticides at all. I have my doubts, from the
way the cockroaches keep reappearing and the fact that the owner just
bought a Mercedes Benz…”
*****
This brief tale may seem like a caricature, but it presents real, common
problems in the use of standards in the developing world. People working
in museums, libraries, archives, archaeological sites and churches that
keep their communities’ cultural heritage are increasingly exposed to the
concept of “standards”. What exactly are these standards, and where did
they come from? What are they based on? What are they used for? Are
there any advantages to adhering to them? How may we use them for our
benefit? How may we avoid their pitfalls?
The word standard has several definitions in the dictionary, and means
different things to different people. This can lead to a surprising degree of
confusion, even at high levels. The participants in a seminar on
Conservation Standards in South Asia organised by the ICCROM, for
instance, had some difficulty in discussing the subject at hand until the
dictionary entry was read aloud and the relevant definition was specified.1
Even when the word is used in a very concrete sense, its multiple nuances
may influence its comprehension. It is therefore important to be familiar
with its full range of meanings, and, as far as possible, to try to avoid
blurring them.
Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts (SPAFA) - ICCROM, Bangkok, 1989, pp. 3-8.
2
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993, p.
3028.
3
Ibid.
6
Finally, “standard” has specific meanings for industry that have permeated
the use of the term in other fields. In industry and engineering, a
standard is “that which has been selected as a model to which objects or
actions may be compared.” Standards can be physical models; devices
used to regulate product attributes such as size, weight, or colour; or
lists, formulas, or drawings which describe a product’s features or certain
procedures.4 The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
currently defines standards as “documented agreements containing
technical specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as
rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics, to ensure that materials,
products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.”5
It could be argued that standards have been used all over the world since
ancient times, especially for construction. Hammurabi set out accepted
building practices; artisans in New Spain wrote down guild specifications
for the construction of altarpieces; English shipyards followed set
guidelines. Early standards helped people to communicate their ideas as
well as to ensure the continuity of methods that had proven their
effectiveness at a local level. However, it was not until the Industrial
Revolution that the use of standards was raised to an unprecedented
level.6
4
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 11 (Micropaedia), 15th Edition, Chicago, 1987, p.
209.
5
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html
6
KELLEY, Stephen J. (ed.), Standards for Preservation and Rehabilitation, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, 1996, p. 1.
7
CROCKER, A. E., “International Standards”, in Dex HARRISON (ed.), Specification 1978:
Building Methods and Products, Vol. 5, The Architectural Press, London, 1978, pp. 190-1.
7
Standards in this context respond primarily to the need for greater compatibility,
ease in communication, and efficiency, in order to lower costs and increase profits.
Of course, on a wider scale, the benefits of standardisation go far beyond monetary
gain, but one should remember that the basic incentive that has driven most
proposals for standardisation is economic, not an idealistic impulse to improve
quality. For instance, the standards governing voltage are different in Europe than in
America. Neither is necessarily better than the other; both facilitate the sale and use
of machinery and electric appliances over a wide region. It is not surprising that most
international standards are produced for fields such as information processing and
communications, distribution of goods, energy production and utilization,
shipbuilding, or banking and financial services, and that adherence is entirely
voluntary. If a standard succeeds in proving its usefulness, it is embraced by
industrial and service sectors.
ISO, like its national counterparts (for example, the American National
Standards Institute, ANSI, the British Standards Institution, BSI, and the
Association Française de Normalisation, AFNOR), relies on the work of
technical committees to draft standards in particular fields. This appears
to be more difficult at an international level, as a wider variety of
sometimes-conflicting viewpoints must be reconciled. Since standards
often have an arbitrary origin, countries may be reluctant to exchange
their own standards for others’, especially when this entails expense. For
example, British automobiles still put the driver on the right, and
American thermometers still measure temperature in Fahrenheit.
During the 1960s these early articles were supplemented with others that
began to use the word “standards” in relation to preventive conservation
measures. One of the earliest was Robert Feller’s “Standards of Exposure
to Light”, which referred to “material” standards (samples of blue cloth)
used in the textile industry to gauge lightfastness. Another was Nathan
Stolow’s “Standards for the Care of Works of Art in Transit”, which was
more of a treatise on the principles and practice of transporting works of
art than a standards document in the modern sense. However, these
articles were not, in themselves, standards.
anyone could offer his services as a conservator. How then could the
owners (public or private) of cultural property distinguish the “good”
conservators from the “bad”? Thus, in 1963, the IIC’s American Group
(later the AIC) adopted its first set of guidelines for “standards of
practice”, known as the Murray Pease Report. This document’s purpose
was “to provide accepted criteria against which a specific procedure or
operation can be measured when a question as to its adequacy has been
raised.”8 It was later supplemented with a code of professional ethics and
published as the 1979 Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice, which
sets forth the general principles guiding a conservator’s conduct. It does
not deal with specific situations, nor does it recommend any
environmental conditions or treatment; it merely explains a conservator’s
responsibilities toward a given historic or artistic object and toward
his/her client.
During these years (1978-9), the ICCROM was equally concerned with this
problem. The Standards and Training Committee discussed the drafting of
international standards in order to protect the interests of objects against
“faulty interventions due to ignorance, arrogance or greed on the part of
any self-styled restorer or conservator and, equally importantly, to
improve the recognition of properly trained persons.”9 The committee
worried that “Standards may work in developed countries, but how can
they be applied elsewhere? The developing world must also be
considered.”10 Indeed, the question of the need for standards in
developing countries is an interesting one. At this time, for instance,
Mexico had already recognised conservation as a legally protected
profession, and created various institutions charged with the conservation
of all public cultural heritage, relying on a strong central government with
a socialist, anthropological vision of cultural heritage instead of depending
on standards.
8
Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice, American Institute for Conservation,
Washington DC, 1979, p. 1.
9
Preliminary Notes of the Standards and Training Committee, ICCROM, Rome, 29
November 1978, p. 2.
10
Notes on the Second Meeting of the Standards and Training Committee, ICCROM, Rome,
19 April 1979, p. 3.
9
In the UK, government reports were equally critical about the auditing and
inventory procedures in national museums; the 1973 Wright Report, for
instance, called for improvements in museums’ documentation and
collections management.14 However, it took some time for concrete
responses to take shape. An early example of an environmental standard
set by an institution is the UKIC’s 1984 Environmental Standards for the
Permanent Storage of Excavated Material from Archaeological Sites. The
BSI contributed two standards in the mid-1980s: Recommendations for
the Storage and Display of Archival Documents (BS 5454) and the
Standard on Active Conservation (BS 4971). A 1988 National Audit Report
was nonetheless damning, so the MGC together with the Area Museums
Councils created incentives to improve collections care, such as the
Registration Scheme. This scheme, introduced in 1988, aims to achieve
“minimum standards” in management, collections care and public
11
WEEKS, Kay D., and H. Ward JANDL, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties: a Philosophical and Ethical Framework for Making
Treatment Decisions”, in Stephen J. KELLEY (ed.), Standards for Preservation and
Rehabilitation, ASTM, West Conshohocken, 1996, p. 8.
12
CROLLAU, E.K., and G.M. KNORING, “Standards of Artificial Light in Museums of the
USSR”, in ICOM Committee for Conservation. 4th Triennial Meeting, Venice, 13-18 October
1975. Preprints, ICOM, Paris, 1975, pp. 75/19/6-1—5.
13
BERRETT, Kory, “Conservation Surveys: Ethical Issues and Standards”, in Journal of the
American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 33, No. 2, summer 1994, pp. 193-4.
14
RAIKES, Susan, “Is Collection Management an ‘Art’ or a ‘Science’? (Discussed with
Reference to Recent Standards Setting Initiatives in the United Kingdom)”, in Journal of
Conservation & Museum Studies, No. 1, May 1996, p. 24.
10
Despite the way that the multiple shades of meaning inherent in the word
standard colour different authors’ conception of the term, there is a
certain consistency in the way it is used in the sources consulted for this
study. Some authors use “standards” in its broadest sense to refer to any
recommended limits for temperature, relative humidity, and light, but this
usage is not very helpful (“recommended environmental values” would be
clearer), nor is it the most usual. More frequently, standards are described
as a model, a benchmark or “an established point of comparison from
15
PAINE, Crispin, “Museums & Galleries Commission Standards in the Care of Museums
Collections: What Are the Implications?” in The Geological Curator, Vol. 6, No. 7, April
1997, p. 267.
16
ALESSANDRINI, Giovanna, and Marisa LAURENZI TABASSO, “Conservation of Cultural
Property in Italy: the UNI-NORMAL Committee for the Definition of Technical Standards”,
in Lauren B. SICKELS-TAVES (ed.), The Use of and Need for Preservation Standards In
Architectural Conservation, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West
Conshohocken, 1999, pp. 25-26.
11
17
VAN GIGCH, John P., Jan ROSVALL, and Bosse LAGERQVIST, “Setting a Strategic
Framework for Conservation Standards”, in Stephen J. KELLEY (ed.), Standards for
Preservation and Rehabilitation, ASTM, West Conshohocken, 1996, p. 64.
18
GRANT, Alice (ed. and comp.), SPECTRUM: The UK Museum Documentation Standard,
Museum Documentation Association, Cambridge, 1994, p. v.
19
BANKS, Paul N., “Formal Environmental Standards for Storage of Books and
Manuscripts: a Status Report”, in The Book and Paper Group Annual, Vol. 5, American
Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC, 1986, p. 124.
20
HENDERSON, Cathy, “Environmental Standards for Exhibiting Library and Archival
Materials: the Work of NISO Committee MM”, in Carlo FEDERICI and Paola F. MUNAFÒ
(eds.), International Conference on Conservation and Restoration of Archival and Library
Materials, Erice (Italy), CCSEM, 22-29 April 1996, Vol. I, Palumbo Editore, Rome, 1999, p.
125.
21
COX, Helen, The Application and Use of Standards in the Care and Management of
Libraries and Archives, National Preservation Office, London, 1999, p. 3.
22
LISTON, David, “Developing National and International Standards for Better Cultural
Security”, in Study series 4, Committee for Museum Security (ICMS), ICOM, 1997, p. 29.
12
The content of standards is usually conceived in very broad terms. The principles and
practices described are far more likely to be general than specific, with the notable
exception of environmental conditions, which are often defined quite precisely. Thus,
where an industrial standard will state, “Place approximately 240 cm3 of
polyurethane foam in each test tube”, a collections management standard may state,
“Appropriate training must be undertaken by those responsible for the day-to-day
care of the collections.” Only a few authors feel that the elements specified in
standards should be measurable, so that when various parties have agreed to abide
by them, compliance or lack of it can be determined with a certain degree of
objectivity.23
The main purpose of standards in this field is, of course, to improve the
preservation of collections and facilitate their use. However, this
fundamental purpose is often closely linked to other, more mundane
objectives. The following excerpt is quite revealing: “The motivation
behind developing minimum security standards and guidelines is the
preservation of collections… The movement is strongly endorsed by
insurance underwriters, loss prevention companies, and law enforcement
agencies.”24 Furthermore, the use of standards to demonstrate
institutions’ ability to provide “value for money” is far from the only
purpose stated in official documents. Judging by what has been written,
standards would appear to be almost a panacea, the solution to myriad
23
BANKS, op cit, p. 124.
24
LISTON, op cit, p. 29.
13
problems facing the conservation of cultural heritage and the daily work
carried out by its custodians.
To begin with, there is the widespread claim that standards justify funding
(as well as the use of other resources such as time) by setting a goal that
must be reached. Thus, a standard stating that collections must be
regularly inspected for damage and reported on, for instance, may serve
to justify hiring a conservator, or to justify the conservator’s apparent
wandering around in the storage area instead of sticking to treatments in
his/her workshop. (Presumably, the head of the institution or the grant-
giving body trusts this generic guideline more than the conservator’s
professional opinion on its own.)
Equally prevalent is the idea that standards help set objectives and
performance indicators, thereby allowing internal or external audits to
measure achievement more dispassionately. This is closely related to the
first purpose, and to the ever-increasing popularity of “total quality”
management. Rather than viewing work as a permanent activity centred
on general, fixed objectives, the “quality planning” trend is based on
“managing change”. An institution is supposed to evolve continually,
through the achievement of an endless stream of projects, each with
specific aims and objectives, each improving on the last. A museum
director with this vision will probably feel more confident about a
conservation project if it has measurable objectives such as “place all
objects at least 150 mm above the floor.”
Still along the same lines is the common desire for standards to be used in
drafting institutional policies. For instance, if an archive has decided to
increase efficiency and consistency by specifying its modus operandi in
writing, it can simplify the task by consulting existing standards and
integrating those that seem most relevant.
All of these aims are often described as serving a wider purpose, which is
to demonstrate accountability and professionalism. While this is
unquestionably a worthy goal, the idea that it can be achieved through
the use of standards is peculiarly Anglo-Saxon. It responds to a culture in
which efficiency, common sense, and an entrepreneurial democracy are
highly valued. Just as stockholders expect reports on their investments, so
museum trustees expect to be shown, in terms that they understand, how
funds have benefited the institution. In other cultures with a greater
tolerance for subjectivity and a more philosophical view of the benefits of
caring for cultural heritage, the idea of putting a price on a sculpture or of
measuring professional achievement by the number of standards met may
seem faintly absurd. Phrases such as “by meeting a set standard it
becomes quite easy to separate the collection of curiosities from the true
museum collections”25 may seem naïve at best. In any case, it is wise to
25
Standards for Manitoba Museums, Association of Manitoba Museums, Winnipeg, 1995, p.
5.
14
take statements encouraging the use of standards in order to “be the best
we can be” and “reach full potential”26 with a generous pinch of salt.
26
Standards for Saskatchewan museums 1991, Museums Association of Saskatchewan,
Regina, 1991, p. 4.
27
Documenting African Collections: Handbook of Standards, ICOM, Paris, 1996, p. 7.
28
Ibid, p. 5.
15
In some cases, proposed standards are not only sent out for comments
but actually put into practice for a trial period. ICOM’s Handbook of
Standards for documenting African collections, for instance, “is the fruit of
four years of thought and discussion, as well as practical application of the
standards proposed.” Six museums participated in a project to test the
standards on their collections over three years. Once the standards had
proven their effectiveness, they were approved and published.33
29
“Decreto 10 maggio 2001: Atto di indirizzo sui criteri tecnico-scientifici e sugli standard
di funzionamento e sviluppo dei musei”, in Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana,
Ministerio della Giustizia, Rome, 19 October 2001, p. 129.
30
HENDERSON, op cit, p. 125.
31
Standards for Manitoba Museums, op cit, p. 2.
32
LISTON, op cit, p. 29.
33
Documenting African Collections: Handbook of Standards, op cit, pp. 6-7.
16
34
HENDERSON, op cit, p. 126.
35
ANTOMARCHI, Catherine, and Gaël DE GUICHEN, “Pour une nouvelle approche des
normes climatiques dans les museés”, in Kirsten GRIMSTAD (ed.), ICOM Committee for
Conservation: 8th Triennial Meeting, Sydney, Australia, 6-11 September, 1987. Preprints,
Getty Conservation Institute, Marina del Rey, 1987, p. 847.
36
Ibid.
37
LAVEDRINE, Bertrand, Martine GILLET, and Chantal GARNIER, “Mise au point d’un
actinomètre pour le contrôle de l’exposition des photographies et des objets sensibles à la
lumière”, in 12th Triennial meeting, Lyon, 29 August-3 September 1999: Preprints, Vol. 1,
ICOM Committee for Conservation-James & James, London, 1999, p. 66.
38
MCCRADY, op cit, p. 97.
17
One final basis for standards in societies that depend on technology is,
perhaps not surprisingly, technology itself. A trend toward the use of “best
available technology” appears to be making itself felt in standards, as
seen in the following statement: “Though no studies reporting damage at
these low pollutant levels appear in the literature, the lower standard [i.e.,
more stringent] is justified by the observation that readily available
technology permits the attainment of the more stringent standard.”40
Similarly, the introduction to a standards document points out, “Due to
the rapidly changing technologies that we face, this subject [building
preservation standards] remains dynamic and will need to be updated in
the years ahead.”41
39
BANKS, op cit, pp. 127-128.
40
BAER, Norbert S., and Paul N. BANKS, “Conservation Notes: Environmental Standards”,
in The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 6, No. 2, June
1987, p. 209.
41
KELLEY, op cit, p. 3.
42
PADFIELD, T., “The Role of Standards and Guidelines: Are They a Substitute for
Understanding a Problem or a Protection against the Consequences of Ignorance?” in
Durability and Change: the Science, Responsibility, and Cost of Sustaining Cultural
Heritage, Report of the Dahlem Workshop on Durability and Change, Dec. 6-11, 1992,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1994, p. 192.
43
Environmental Standards for the Permanent Storage of Excavated Material from
Archaeological Sites, United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Archaeology section,
London, 1984, p. 1.
18
Other documents provide some explanation of the context, the theory, the
objectives and/or the method pertaining to each standard. Some also list
sources of advice and technical assistance. Terminology and vocabulary
definitions may be an integral component of the standards, especially in
those concerned with documentation.
The idea behind these levels is that all institutions can apply the standards
according to their needs and possibilities. In the spirit of non-compulsory
standards, “the presumption is not that all standards are relevant to every
institution. It is left to each museum and gallery to determine, according
to its own aspirations and resources, which standards apply in its case.”45
Sometimes standards are presented in such a way that each section may
be used independently or strung together in a modular fashion adapted to
the way each institution works.46
44
Standards for Saskatchewan museums 1991, op cit, p. 5.
45
Ibid, p. 4.
46
GRANT, op cit, pp. 2, 4.
19
47
Standards for Saskatchewan Museums 1991, op cit, p. 4.
20
comply with all of the above, as well as: (i) be able to seal off/isolate
storage and display areas; (ii) limit and mark areas for food/beverage
preparation, storage and consumption.48
More detailed than the Canadian standards, but much briefer than the
Venezuelan ones, this document provides explanatory “guidelines and
notes” to its standards. Here, the subject of pest control is dealt with in
five points, complemented by a note and a guideline. The standards are:
(i) all harmful biologically active agents must be eliminated from the
collections, storage areas, buildings and plant; (ii) a programme for
regular monitoring of collections, buildings and plant for pests, etc. must
be instituted; (iii) all incoming objects and their packaging materials must
be inspected for the presence of biologically active agents before being
introduced to the main storage or display areas; (iv) all pest control or
related work must be undertaken, or supervised, by fully trained and
experienced personnel; (v) any use of pesticides must comply with the
Health and Safety Commission’s Approved Code of Practice. “Biologically
48
Ibid, pp. 28-29.
49
TOLEDO, María Ismenia et al, Normativas técnicas para museos, Dirección General
Sectorial de Museos del Consejo Nacional de la Cultura, Caracas, 1991, pp. 64-65. [Trans.
by R.A.]
21
It is quite clear that all three sets of standards address similar concerns:
the need for periodic revision, “good housekeeping”, adequate treatment,
and protection from harmful pesticides. However, each one tackles these
subjects in ways that are strongly influenced by the cultural context and
the particular problems faced by institutions in the different countries.
Whereas the Canadian standards emphasise the importance of training
staff and of registering infestations and treatments, the Venezuelan
standards stress the role of environmental conditions and explain cleaning
methods in detail; meanwhile, the British standards find it useful to define
pests and mention non-toxic control methods. To a dispassionate
international observer, all three documents have their particular strengths
and weaknesses. Of course, in the end, the most useful judgements will
be those from the institutions for which the standards were originally
written. One vital observation may nonetheless be made: the standards
will be far less useful outside their original context. One can imagine the
Venezuelan museum worker dutifully inspecting infested material before
introducing it directly to the storage area, according to “British
standards”; or a British curator failing to follow regulations for pesticide
use because “Canadian standards” did not remind him to check them.
50
Standards in the Museum Care of Archaeological Collections 1992, Museums and
Galleries Commission, London, 1992, pp. 45-46.
22
51
BAER and BANKS, op cit, p. 209.
52
Standards in the Museum Care of Musical Instruments 1995, Museums and Galleries
Commission, London, 1995, p. 50.
53
http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/document-manager/view-
document_e.cfm?Document_ID=118&ref=co
54
O'CONNELL, Millie, “The New Museum Climate: Standards & Technologies. Northeast
Document Conservation Center's Conference at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, April 25-
26, 1996”, in The Abbey newsletter, Vol. 20, Nos. 4-5, September 1996, p. 58.
23
55
Standards in the Museum Care of Larger and Working Objects: Social and Industrial
History Collections 1994, Museums and Galleries Commission, London, 1994, pp. 5-6.
56
BERRETT, op cit, p. 194.
24
57
KELLEY, op cit, p. 3.
58
BAYNES-COPE, Arthur David, “British Standards for Conservation: Problems and
Possibilities”, in James BLACK (comp.), Recent Advances In the Conservation and Analysis
of Artifacts. Jubilee Conservation Conference, London 6-10 July 1987, University of London
(Institute of Archaeology), Summer Schools Press, London, 1987, p. 342.
59
RAIKES, op cit, p. 28.
25
60
COX, op cit, p. 3.
61
ALESSANDRINI, op cit, p. 27.
62
TOLEDO, op cit, pp. 64-65. [Trans. by R.A.]
26
Access to keys must be controlled.65 This seems fairly obvious, but what
exactly constitutes “control”? Does it mean that one person is responsible
for them? That all keys should be kept in one place? That their
whereabouts should be known at all times? That their usage should be
registered in writing?
63
Standards for Saskatchewan Museums 1991, op cit, p. 24.
64
Standards in the Museum Care of Costume and Textile Collections 1998, op cit, p. 49.
65
Standards for Saskatchewan Museums 1991, op cit, p. 23.
27
in mind, and should not be applied directly in a different one without due
reflection. (The Association of Manitoba Museums did not adopt
neighbouring Saskatchewan’s standards; they had to be adapted.) Socio-
economic and cultural factors determine many things besides the way that
standards are interpreted or applied. For example, voluntary standards
will be far more successful in a context that provides the necessary
conditions for honesty to be valued and rewarded. In societies beset by
poverty, corruption, and/or injustice, voluntary standards are likely to be
next to useless, and imposed standards may be resented.
66
MCCRADY, op cit, p. 96.
67
RAIKES, op cit, p. 24.
68
Ibid, p. 27.
69
HENDERSON, op cit, p. 125.
70
PADFIELD, op cit, pp. 192, 198.
71
ANTOMARCHI and DE GUICHEN, op cit, pp. 848-850.
72
PADFIELD, op cit, p. 192.
28
It is usually difficult to have curators accept that not all collections should
be kept at 20° C and 50% relative humidity. Even when such values are
almost impossible to achieve, they remain a mystical target they believe
we should try to reach in spite of the data that have been gathered
proving the difficulties, and the dangers, of their use.75
Besides the possible changes in a single set of standards from one year to
the next, the potential confusion of having several overlapping,
occasionally contradictory standards has also been pointed out. Some
authors wonder how the MGC Standards, for example, fit in with others
drawn up by different organisations for similar collections.76
73
BANKS, op cit, p. 125.
74
CHRISTENSEN, Carol, “Environmental Standards: Looking Beyond Flatlining?” in AIC
News, Vol. 20, No. 5, September 1995, p. 2.
75
ELIAS CASANOVAS, Luis E., and Ana Isabel SERUYA, “Climate Control in a 16th –Century
Building in the South of Portugal”, in 12th Triennial meeting, Lyon, 29 August-3 September
1999: preprints, Vol. 1, ICOM Committee for Conservation-James & James, London, 1999,
p. 27.
76
PAINE, op cit, p. 268.
29
Aside from the cost of meeting a given requirement, the cost of drawing
up standards to begin with might be significant. It would be interesting to
carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the time and effort spent discussing
preservation issues every few years, not to explore new alternatives or
77
KAPLAN, Marilyn E., “The Impact of Building Regulations and Standards on Preservation
and Conservation: an International Perspective”, in ICOMOS 8th General Assembly and
International Symposium "Old Cultures in New Worlds", Washington, D.C. Oct. 10-15,
1987. Symposium Papers, Vol. 1, ICOMOS United States Committee, Washington, D. C.,
1987, p. 342.
78
BERRETT, op cit, pp. 195, 197.
79
BAYNES-COPE, op cit, p. 341.
80
STANIFORTH, Sarah, “Preventive Conservation In National Trust Houses”, in
International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property:
Cultural Property and its Environment, 11-13 October 1990, Tokyo National Research
Institute of Cultural Properties, Tokyo, 1995, pp. 145, 160, 164.
81
PADFIELD, op cit, p. 199.
30
82
PAINE, op cit, p. 268.
83
TOLEDO, op cit, p. 3.
84
SWINTON, William Elgin, “Museum Standards”, in Curator, Vol. I, No. 1, January 1958,
p. 63.
85
PADFIELD, op cit, p. 199.
86
Ibid, p. 197.
31
To conclude, one might say that standards are good servants but bad
masters. Some authors believe that “If we continue on our anarchic way
without our own codes, standards, and guidelines, we will continue to be
controlled, without realizing it, by modern industrial standards.”87 They
summon conservators to “take the opportunity, the initiative, and the
responsibility for determining the professional standards and ethical
principles that shape this field of endeavour.”88 However, one may also
87
Ibid, p. 199.
88
BERRETT, op cit, p. 197.
32
ask why we should join in this game of follow the leader at all. Especially
when the leader is only interested in his pocketbook, and not in our
cultural heritage. Shouldn’t we resist the attempt to blur the distinction
between professional ethics and standardised procedures? Perhaps it’s
high time to lead our own game, on our own terms.
33
34
1991 Standards for Museums Essential standards: Essential standards: Essential standards:
Saskatchewan Association of • UV radiation max. 75 • One person • One person responsible
Museums Saskatchewan µW/lumen responsible for monitoring for monitoring &
(Canada) • Storage areas: max. & recording recording environmental
150 lux environmental levels and levels and making
• Display areas: light making recommendations recommendations for
levels kept at levels for improvements or improvements or
recommended by CCI changes changes
Basic standards: Basic standards:
• Optimum = 21°C ± • Optimum = 47-53% RH
1.5°C daily ± 2% RH daily
• Range = 20-25°C ± • Range = 38-55% RH ±
1.5°C daily 2% RH daily, 5% RH
Advanced standards: monthly
• Temperature Advanced standards:
automatically monitored & • Relative humidity
adjusted to meet automatically monitored
published CCI & adjusted to meet
specifications by air published CCI
conditioning system specifications by air
conditioning system
35
1991 Normativas técnicas Consejo • Max. 150 lux • Fluctuation must not • Set point: 55-65%
para museos Nacional de la exceed 1°C per month RH
Cultura • Set point: 18-22°C • Sharp variations
(Venezuela) should be avoided
1995 Standards for Association of Basic standards: Basic standards: Basic standards:
Manitoba Manitoba • Light in display areas • Ideal temperature = 20°C • Set point between
Museums Museums must be kept within • Temperature must be 35 and 65% RH
(Canada) recommended levels kept constant with • Daily fluctuations
Specialized standards: minimum fluctuations kept to a minimum
• Moderately sensitive
materials: 150 lux, 75 Specialized standards: Specialized standards:
µW/lumen • Temperature must • Relative humidity
achieve the national must achieve the
standards (published by national standards
the CCI) through use of (published by the CCI)
environmental control through use of
systems environmental control
systems
2001 Standard di Ministero per i • Moderately sensitive • Set point: 19-24 °C • Set point: 50-65% RH
qualità dei musei Beni e le objects: max. 150 lux,
Attività 75 µW/lumen, < 1.2
Culturali µW/cm2, 10 W/m2
(Italy)
36
1991 Standards for Museums Essential standards: Essential standards: Essential standards:
Saskatchewan Association of • UV radiation max. 75 • One person • One person responsible
Museums Saskatchewan µW/lumen responsible for monitoring for monitoring &
(Canada) • Storage areas: max. & recording recording environmental
150 lux environmental levels and levels and making
• Display areas: light making recommendations recommendations for
levels kept at levels for improvements or improvements or
recommended by CCI changes changes
Basic standards: Basic standards:
• Optimum = 21°C ± • Optimum = 47-53% RH
1.5°C daily ± 2% RH daily
• Range = 20-25°C ± • Range = 38-55% RH ±
1.5°C daily 2% RH daily, 5%
Advanced standards: monthly
• Temperature Advanced standards:
automatically monitored Relative humidity
37
1991 Normativas técnicas Consejo • Max. 50 lux • Fluctuation must not • Set point: 50-60%
para museos Nacional de la exceed 1°C per month RH
Cultura • Set point: 18-22°C • Sharp variations
(Venezuela) should be avoided
1995 Draft of National • Visible light levels • Set point max. 21°C • Set point between
Environmental Information should be as low as • Max. daily 35 to 50% RH, inclusive
Standards for Standards possible for adequate temperature fluctuation ± • Max. daily variation
Exhibiting Library Organization viewing, max. 150 lux 3°C in 24 hours ± 5% RH in 24 hours
& Archival (US) • Level of less than • Max. total • Max. total variation
Materials 100 lux recommended temperature variation ± ± 5% RH
• UV radiation max. 3°C • Sensitive materials
75 µW/lumen will require stricter
• Exposure max. controls, e.g. ± 2% RH
100,000 lux hours/year
for sensitive materials;
50,000 lux hours/year
for extremely sensitive
materials
• Cumulative light
exposure max. 200,000
lux hours/year for
moderately stable
materials, 50,000 lux
hours/year for
extremely sensitive
38
materials
1995 Standards for Association of Basic standards: Basic standards: Basic standards:
Manitoba Manitoba • Light in display areas • Ideal temperature = 20°C • Set point between
Museums Museums must be kept within • Temperature must be 35 and 65% RH
(Canada) recommended levels kept constant with • Daily fluctuations
Specialized standards: minimum fluctuations kept to a minimum
• Moderately sensitive
materials (paper): 150 Specialized standards: Specialized standards:
lux, 75 µW/lumen • Temperature must • Relative humidity
• Highly sensitive achieve the national must achieve the
materials (watercolours, standards (published by national standards
colour prints, felt-tip the CCI) through use of (published by the CCI)
pen drawings): 50 lux, environmental control through use of
75 µW/lumen systems environmental control
systems
2001 Standard di Ministero per i • Highly sensitive • Set point: 19-24°C • Set point: 50-60% RH
qualità dei musei Beni e le objects: max 50 lux,
Attività 150,000 lux hours/year,
Culturali 75 µW/lumen, < 0.4
(Italy) µW/cm2, 3 W/m2
2001? CD-ROM on IFLA-PAC, • Parchment, paper & • Parchment, papyrus, • Parchment, papyrus, &
preventive UNESCO leather: 50-100 lux, paper & leather: 18°C, ± leather: 50-60% RH, ±
measures for max. 720 hours/year 2°C 5% RH
library collections • Papyrus: 50 lux, max. • Paper: 45-55% RH, ± 5%
and archival 720 hours/year RH
documents
39
40
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Vol. 11.03, American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, 2000.
BALLESTREM, Agnes, “The Restorer: a Definition of the Profession”, paper for the
Standards and Training Committee, ICCROM, Rome, 29 November, 1978.
BANKS, Paul N., “Formal Environmental Standards for Storage of Books and
Manuscripts: a Status Report”, in The Book and Paper Group Annual, Vol.
5, American Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC, 1986, pp. 124-8.
COX, Helen, The Application and Use of Standards in the Care and Management
of Libraries and Archives, National Preservation Office, London, 1999.
DAVIES, John, A study of the basic standards and methods in preservation and
restoration workshops applicable to developing countries, International
Council on Archives/UNESCO, Brussels, 1973.
DOEBLEY, Carl E., and Donald S. SPITZER, “Guidelines and Standards for Testing
Historic Mortars”, in Stephen J. KELLEY (ed.), Standards for Preservation
and Rehabilitation, ASTM, West Conshohocken, 1996, pp. 285-293.
ELIAS CASANOVAS, Luis E., and Ana Isabel SERUYA, “Climate Control in a 16th –
Century Building in the South of Portugal”, in 12th Triennial meeting,
Lyon, 29 August-3 September 1999: preprints, Vol. 1, ICOM Committee
for Conservation-James & James, London, 1999, pp. 27-30.
LAVEDRINE, Bertrand, Martine GILLET, and Chantal GARNIER, “Mise au point d’un
actinomètre pour le contrôle de l’exposition des photographies et des
objets sensibles à la lumière”, in 12th Triennial meeting, Lyon, 29 August-
3 September 1999: Preprints, Vol. 1, ICOM Committee for Conservation-
James & James, London, 1999, pp. 65-68.
Notes on the Second Meeting of the Standards and Training Committee, ICCROM,
Rome, 19 April 1979.
PADFIELD, T., “The Role of Standards and Guidelines: Are They a Substitute for
Understanding a Problem or a Protection against the Consequences of
Ignorance?” in Durability and Change: the Science, Responsibility, and
Cost of Sustaining Cultural Heritage, Report of the Dahlem Workshop on
Durability and Change, Dec. 6-11, 1992, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
1994, pp. 191-9.
Standards in the Museum Care of Larger and Working Objects: Social and
Industrial History Collections 1994, Museums and Galleries Commission,
London, 1994.
STOLOW, Nathan, “Standards for the Care of Works of Art in Transit”, in IIC
Conference on Museum Climatology, London, 19 September 1967, IIC,
London, 1967.
VAN GIGCH, John P., Jan ROSVALL, and Bosse LAGERQVIST, “Setting a Strategic
Framework for Conservation Standards”, in Stephen J. KELLEY (ed.),
Standards for Preservation and Rehabilitation, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
1996, pp. 64-71.
WEEKS, Kay D., and H. Ward JANDL, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties: a Philosophical and Ethical
Framework for Making Treatment Decisions”, in Stephen J. KELLEY (ed.),
Standards for Preservation and Rehabilitation, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
1996, pp. 7-22.
WHITE, Russel D., “Guidelines for the Documentation and Care of Invertebrate
Fossil Collections” in Russel D. WHITE and Warren D. ALLMON (eds.),
Guidelines for the management and curation of invertebrate fossils
collections including a data and standards for computerization: a National
Science Foundation workshop at the North American Paleontological
Conference, Washington, DC, June 7-14, 1996, North American
Paleontological Society, New Haven, 2000, pp. 51-63.